some more of the gun banners

thought this was a interesting read. we should all keep up with what the anti's are doing.let me know what you think.

i thinking that they ask for money a lot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz

https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:Campa...28189410/rid:6fd8ed788a2d54acd8771e55fa7a3864

I clicked on the link for his book, and reading the description has got me steamed! It sounds like a load of limp-wristed, spineless, effete, statist bullcrap.

And when gun enthusiasts talk about Constitutional liberties guaranteed by the Second Amendment, they are referring to freedom in a general sense, but they also have something more specific in mind---freedom from government oppression. They argue that the only way to keep federal authority in check is to arm individual citizens who can, if necessary, defend themselves from an aggressive government.
In the past decade, this view of the proper relationship between government and individual rights and the insistence on a role for private violence in a democracy has been co-opted by the conservative movement. As a result, it has spread beyond extreme "militia" groups to influence state and national policy.
In Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea, Josh Horwitz and Casey Anderson reveal that the proponents of this view base their argument on a deliberate misreading of history. The Insurrectionist myth has been forged by twisting the facts of the American Revolution and the founding of the United States, the denial of civil rights to African-Americans after the Civil War, and the rise of the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler. Here, Horwitz and Anderson set the record straight. Then, challenging the proposition that more guns equal more freedom, they expose Insurrectionism---not government oppression---as the true threat to freedom in the U.S. today.

Click to expand...

People who think like this are the real domestic terrorists.

maybe they liked romania better??

Ehhh the comments are the WORSE! "Guns are evil. People who use them, even more so. Someday, though surely not in my lifetime, humans will evolve." Ehhh

About the second link. They wrote "Finally, let's look at recent developments in Arizona, one of only 4 states to allow concealed carry with no screening or training. Last month, Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a bill that would have allowed guns in public buildings like police stations, libraries, and city halls. How toxic is the NRA when the Republican Governor of Arizona can't stomach their bills?"

Umm wasn't AzCDL that was working this law? Geez they can at least get their facts strait...

here's another one that i got today. not sure where they are going with this

https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:Campa...30027818/rid:370bd5cad0808d05e8beadc49eb52913

Someone should point out to them that we aren't a democracy, but rather a democratic republic.

....The Insurrectionist myth has been forged by twisting the facts of the American Revolution and the founding of the United States,....

Click to expand...

Uh, the founders were insurgents. Not a great many facts to 'twist'.

Reader's Digest version:

The King (English dude), trampled the rights and liberties of some of his (typically all) citizens. Some got PO'd, started a war for independence, others did not agree with the insurgents and kept on helping the King, and the PO'd folks won the war. Typically referred to as the American Revolution.

Then BAM!....America is born.

The ones who got PO'd and did revolt are the ancestors of the liberty minded folks of today. The ones who liked the King are the ancestors of the loony-lib-sock-puppets of today.

The Founders wrote down some liberty minded stuff to document their reasoning behind going to war and what the new nation should be like.

Definition of REVOLUTION - 2a: a sudden, radical, or complete change b: a fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed.

Definition of REBEL: one who rebels or participates in a rebellion.

Definition of INSURRECTION: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

Definition of INSURGENT - 1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Click to expand...

Fast forward to 2012; some folks, the descendents of the folks who liked the King, don't like what those 'old slave owning rich white dudes' (the PO'd folks back in the day) did. Yet the loony-lib-sock-puppets of today enjoy today the fruits of what the 'old slave owning rich white dudes' did back then, and rightly so.

The descendents of the PO'd folks, back then, want to 'persuade' the descendents of the folks who liked the King, back then, to go along with them and 'encourage' the gubmint of today, which is more like the King's gubmint back then, to be like the gubmint the PO'd folks back then made.

Any questions?

can't really go along with the founding brothers being "insurgents", most of them were born here and had several generations behind them. which begs the question how long does it take to be a native American?

papa bear said:

can't really go along with the founding brothers being "insurgents", most of them were born here and had several generations behind them.

Click to expand...

Those aren't mutually-exclusive categories. In fact, I'd wager that the vast majority of so-called "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan have never left their countries (note: THEIR countries).

papa bear said:

can't really go along with the founding brothers being "insurgents", most of them were born here and had several generations behind them.

Click to expand...

Up until America was it's own country they were still Englishmen and thus insurectionists/insurgents.

which begs the question how long does it take to be a native American?

Click to expand...

Were you born in America? If the answer is yes then YOU are native to American and are a native American. I don't care where you're ancestors are from, it's about where YOU are native to.


EDIT: Fixed the second quote.

"bans are now constitutional since Slippery Slopes have never applied to guns because guns are bad and therefore different and their Common Sense restrictions could never be applied to other rights like Freedom of Speech or Abortion. Registration schemes are harmless to gun owners which has been proven in Illinois where records are public and crime guns and violence have been reduced creating the safest streets."



wwwhhhhhhaaaaaat???

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

"The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being..."
-- J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

”Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
~George Washington

scott58dh said:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

Click to expand...

Except for those rebellious southerners.

January 1861 -- The South Secedes.

February 1861 -- The South Creates a Government.

February 1861 -- The South Seizes Federal Forts.

March 1861 -- Lincoln's Inauguration.

April 12, 1861 -- Attack on Fort Sumter.

Abe Lincoln was a royal POS.

The first American dictator-for-life.

Adams182 said:

"bans are now constitutional since Slippery Slopes have never applied to guns because guns are bad and therefore different and their Common Sense restrictions could never be applied to other rights like Freedom of Speech or Abortion. Registration schemes are harmless to gun owners which has been proven in Illinois where records are public and crime guns and violence have been reduced creating the safest streets."



wwwhhhhhhaaaaaat???

Click to expand...

that is a reflection of some of the flat out lies that the ANTI's or willing to do to push their agenda

oc for me said:

except for those rebellious southerners.

January 1861 -- the south secedes.

February 1861 -- the south creates a government.

February 1861 -- the south seizes federal forts.

March 1861 -- lincoln's inauguration.

april 12, 1861 -- attack on fort sumter.

Click to expand...

life is short, so get over it !!!

OC for ME said:

Except for those rebellious southerners.

January 1861 -- The South Secedes.

February 1861 -- The South Creates a Government.

February 1861 -- The South Seizes Federal Forts.

March 1861 -- Lincoln's Inauguration.

April 12, 1861 -- Attack on Fort Sumter.

Click to expand...

Well technically Lincoln was right. Some people managed to exercise their right to amend the system, while others exercised their revolutionary right to overthrow it. Though just because people exercised those rights doesn't mean they were successful. After all the south lost their revolution, while those that tried to "free" the slaves simply ended up causing them to become slaves of a different system (Jim Crow laws, welfare, other things that keep the poor under the thumb of the government, etc).

Aknazer said:

Someone should point out to them that we aren't a democracy, but rather a democratic republic.

Click to expand...

I was taught by my 8th grade History teacher that we're a "democratic republic." It said so right there in the text, too.

Both my teacher, and the text, were wrong.

We are a Republic, period, bar none. Says so in the U.S. Constitution, and nearly all of the States' Constitutions. It does NOT say "democratic" republic. The reason it does say that is because the Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered, and summarily dismissed all forms of democracy. They knew full well the lessons of Greece and Rome, how democracy lead to socialism, then dictatorship, and they wanted no part of it.

since9 said:

I was taught by my 8th grade History teacher that we're a "democratic republic." It said so right there in the text, too.

Both my teacher, and the text, were wrong.

We are a Republic, period, bar none. Says so in the U.S. Constitution, and nearly all of the States' Constitutions. It does NOT say "democratic" republic. The reason it does say that is because the Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered, and summarily dismissed all forms of democracy. They knew full well the lessons of Greece and Rome, how democracy lead to socialism, then dictatorship, and they wanted no part of it.

Click to expand...

And yet we are a democratic republic. If we weren't then it wouldn't be possible for things to go to the ballot for the people to decide. One example being California's prop 8 or how there had been talk of certain people wanting to send the OK OC bill to the ballot instead of the legislature actually voting on it. Luckily the use of the democratic part is very small, but it is there and has been used.

Aknazer said:

And yet we are a democratic republic.

Click to expand...

No, we are not. We are simply a Republic: "A republic is a form of government in which the government is officially apportioned to the control of the people and thus a "public matter" (Latin: res publica) and where offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed." - Source

Inherent within a Republic is direct or indirect election of the people's representatives. There's no need whatsoever to introduce "democratic," a term that's both oxymoronic on the one hand, and contrary on the other hand:

Democracy: "Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens (meeting certain qualifications) have an equal opportunity to express their opinion." - Source

We are not a "democracy," nor are we even "democratic," as both require the citizens themselves to "determine public policy." Furthermore democracies require citizens to be able to "equally express their opinion" to all the other citizens who're also determining public policy. Such a condition exists only when the numbers are small enough to allow it, and the maximum theoretical limit is measured in the hundreds. Such a form of government is impossible for tens of thousands of people, much less 300 Million.

Again, your use of the term "democratic" is both misleading and contrary to the meaning and intent of the term "Republic." There is no such thing as a "democratic republic," Aknazer.

If we weren't then it wouldn't be possible for things to go to the ballot for the people to decide.

Click to expand...

That's not a democracy, or even democratic.

One example being California's prop 8 or how there had been talk of certain people wanting to send the OK OC bill to the ballot instead of the legislature actually voting on it. Luckily the use of the democratic part is very small, but it is there and has been used.

Click to expand...

That's neither a democracy, nor is it democratic. Were each and every citizen given the opportunity to craft Prop 8? No. Were those voting on it able to discuss it with those who were formulating it before it was floated as a proposition? No.

Not a democracy. Not democratic.

Their representatives discussed it, formulated it, and floated it. That's a REPUBLIC, my friend, pure and simple. The fact that the representatives float some of the issues for a final vote is immaterial, as the representatives retain full control over what's discussed, what's formulated, and what's floated. Not the people, e.g. not a democracy. Not democratic.

Sure, if the citizens don't like what's discussed, formulated, and floated, they can vote them out of office. Again, a Republic: "offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed."

Not a democracy. Not democratic.